A Utah mother of four small children has been jailed on a judge's order that she serve 30 days behind bars for allegedly sending a text message while she was watching a court proceeding....According to Jackson's report the incident happened....about a month ago, but his daughter-in-law was summoned to court only yesterday and ordered immediately to jail....Susan Henwood allegedly sent a text message, an action that didn't affect the hearing, its participants, or the judge, but later was reported to him by a member of the court staff, according to Jackson.

Should have been six months. I am sick and tired of cell phones being EVERYWHERE. You can’t go anywhere without hearing a conversation from people yapping on the phone and the texting is insane. You can hear those keys going a mile a minute and don’t get me started on the driving while texting....

Bull crap. I just took out my cell phone and started punching keys (just to prove my point) and suddenly everyone just looked over at me wondering what I was doing. I am sitting in an office with five other people and they all could hear it. Texting is not a silent activity.

Should have been six months. I am sick and tired of cell phones being EVERYWHERE. You cant go anywhere without hearing a conversation from people yapping on the phone and the texting is insane. You can hear those keys going a mile a minute and dont get me started on the driving while texting....

You people are sick! It's none of your f***** business who is talking to what....person or machine. You have no right to a sound-free environment.

18
posted on 04/29/2009 3:13:01 AM PDT
by Niteranger68
(I am an extremist that was created by Butch Napolitano.)

I was a court reporter in court for 20 years. Babies crying didn’t bother me, but a public defender had his watch set to go off every minute to remind him to breathe. Yes, it happens. He couldn’t wear his watch in my court again.

It also seems to me that there is such a thing as "texting" in every court - after all, what else is the court stenographer actually doing? If nothing in the hearing was classified, and if the judge didn't know about the incident until he was told, it looks like "no harm, no foul" would have been the correct (non) call.

25
posted on 04/29/2009 3:49:16 AM PDT
by conservatism_IS_compassion
(The conceit of journalistic objectivity is profoundly subversive of democratic principle.)

“She was summoned to court where Henriod ordered her immediately to jail for 30 days, responding to a request for bail with the condition that would be allowed only if her husband paid a $70,000 judgment stemming from the civil dispute, Jackson reported.”

He would give bail only if they agreed to pay a judgment. Anyone else pulled this and it would be called extortion.

Whoa, wait a minute! This woman is a mother with 4 small children at home. This crime certainly does not necessitate this punishment, this abuse of judicial power. A monetary fine would be appropriate here as such, maybe $15?

I agree. People convicted of DUI and shoplifting usually receive less jail time and cause FAR more harm to society. The most the woman should have received is a small fine. The Judge is acting as a tyrant.

She was summoned to court where Henriod ordered her immediately to jail for 30 days, responding to a request for bail with the condition that would be allowed only if her husband paid a $70,000 judgment stemming from the civil dispute, Jackson reported.

Obviously the judge agreed with us...lol. I do have a right to a sound-free environment in a court room....what a stupid thing to say. Do you actually read what you write???

Considering the who the judge is, agreeing with him doesn't put you in good company. And YOU don't have a right to a sound-free environment in a courtroom because YOU have no power to make everyone else shut up. It's the judges call, not yours. And my comment was based on your comment which went well beyond the courtroom. Maybe you should go back and read your own post.

Should have been six months. I am sick and tired of cell phones being EVERYWHERE. You cant go anywhere without hearing a conversation from people yapping on the phone and the texting is insane. You can hear those keys going a mile a minute and dont get me started on the driving while texting....

You were complaining about cell phones being EVERYWHERE, not just court. You must be one of those "if I don't want one, you can't have one" types.

39
posted on 04/29/2009 5:14:20 AM PDT
by Niteranger68
(I am an extremist that was created by Butch Napolitano.)

You must be one of those “if I don’t want one, you can’t have one” types.

Not at all. I have 2 cell phones. One for work and one personal, but I am courteous and don’t use it in the stores or while driving. I would not even dream of using it in a courtroom. I don’t know why you are upset over my post. I did a rant that every FREEPER does from time to time and maybe it was over the top but it was still just a rant.

Ah, excuse me. I was a court reporter in court for 20 years. Babies crying didnt bother me, but a public defender had his watch set to go off every minute to remind him to breathe. Yes, it happens. He couldnt wear his watch in my court again.

Not sure what your point is. Of course the judge can control his court (to a certain degree). If you are in my house, I can control you from making sound by tossing you out. But in the general public, nobody has the right to a sound-free environment.

42
posted on 04/29/2009 5:19:38 AM PDT
by Niteranger68
(I am an extremist that was created by Butch Napolitano.)

I hate cellular phones and find those who are obsessed with texting or calling on cell phones in certain environments annoying. Some cell phone users are even downright inconsiderate while using their cell phones. Unless I'm directly affected by such disturbances, I just remain quiet in my contempt...minding to my own business.

However, such behavior should not be subject to fine or imprisonment. In most court rooms, the bailiff will ask the user to stop or step outside the courtroom.

You must be one of those if I dont want one, you cant have one types. Not at all. I have 2 cell phones. One for work and one personal, but I am courteous and dont use it in the stores or while driving. I would not even dream of using it in a courtroom. I dont know why you are upset over my post. I did a rant that every FREEPER does from time to time and maybe it was over the top but it was still just a rant.

Since you don't use yours in stores, can I take it your don't talk at all in stores either? Because really, what does it matter if someone is talking to an electronic device or another person? It's really not your business...seriously, it's not. The point is, you are not the national arbiter of cell phone courtesy.

As for the rant, it cuts both ways. You rant...I rant...we rant. It's all part of the debate. I'm not saying your are a bad person, maybe just a tad too concerned about how someone else is exercising their personal freedom.

It's nothing personal. We can still have a beer together...if we can find a bar quiet enough for you. :)

46
posted on 04/29/2009 5:39:04 AM PDT
by Niteranger68
(I am an extremist that was created by Butch Napolitano.)

What's funny is these are probably the SAME freepers (the ones complaining about people texting) that go bonkers when the government tries to take away their right to smoke at a restaurant.

I absolutely support the restaurant owners decision if they want to allow smoking or not. If you don't want to smell smoke, go to a smoke-free restaurant. If you don't want to hear loud music, don't go where there is a live band. If you don't want to smell cooked meat, don't go to a steakhouse. I really don't understand people who think they have a right to a purified public environment.

49
posted on 04/29/2009 5:51:25 AM PDT
by Niteranger68
(I am an extremist that was created by Butch Napolitano.)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.